ILNews

Start Page: Is your data in the cloud really out of (your) control?

December 4, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

WilsonI found a cloud-based software program that did everything I wanted it to do. It worked smoothly on all my devices. Then, I get the email, the one that says “We are happy to announce our new website. You are going to love the new features!” I ask, “Why fix something that’s not broken?”

Soon, you will have the same experience. In today’s rapidly changing technology environment, programmers update software frequently. Your choice: accept the changes or move on. When was the last time you went more than a day without an update request from your smartphone?

Cloud-based solutions offer economy and portability. You can access client information from anywhere. Updates are handled automatically. It’s a great time to be alive for a mobile lawyer!

But, that convenience can be a double-edged sword. Just when you learn how to use and operate the software, it can change. Some changes are good, such as updates to security flaws and other “behind the scenes” issues. Others can improve productivity. Other times, there are drastic changes, like complete site re-designs. Further, if the company goes under, what happens to your data?

If your data is in the cloud, do you know where it is? Do you know who has access to it? Is your data stored in the United States? Is it stored securely? Is the data commingled with other users’ data? If you want to move to another program, how easy is it to get your data out of the cloud-based software? Because it is web-based, what happens if your Internet connection is lost? Before jumping into the latest and greatest offering from the world of cloud computing, you need to understand the risks and benefits.

One way to understand cloud computing is to talk with your IT professional. Also, take a minute to read the new American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct. The ABA recently changed Model Rule 1.1 and the comments to Model Rule 1.1 to expand the lawyer’s duty to “keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice” by now specifically including the requirement to understand “the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.” Model Rule 1.1 [8]. When your data is in the cloud, you are no longer in control.

Why bother with cloud computing? The answer is simple: in a few years, you will not have a choice. Every software application will be cloud-based. When is the last time you purchased a new computer that came with physical installation discs? Take a look at what Microsoft has done with Windows 8, stating that it is “Your Windows, everywhere.” The idea is that the software is central and all devices connect to that software for the same user experience. The cloud is where all your information lives. Apple is no different, pushing user data and software to iCloud. Google launched Google Drive and a web-based suite of office software.

There are many benefits of cloud computing. Upgrades and updates are obsolete. Your provider handles backups. Given the increased privacy concerns around use of data, providers should have a vested interest in keeping your information secure. Or do they?

You probably know that the software on your devices and the websites you visit collect data about you while you search the Web. Have you ever shopped for shoes and then noticed that the next time you checked your webmail account, you see ads for those same shoes? It’s not an accident; it’s called tracking and most websites do it.

Another risk is a specific type of hacker called a “hacktivist.” According to Wikipedia, hacktivism is “the use of computers and computer networks to promote political ends, chiefly free speech, human rights, and information ethics.” An example of the danger of this type of hacker is the law firm that successfully defended a client in an action, and the hacker feels that the law firm shouldn’t have won. The hacker hacks the law firm and potentially destroys the firm, all because of ideology. Think it can’t happen? It already has. (Google “anonymous-may-have-completely-destroyed-military-law-firm”). In fact, the FBI has warned that law firms have been the subject of hack attempts.

So, are things really out of your control? The classic lawyer answer is: it depends. If you use or are considering using web-based applications, take these three steps. First, get your client’s permission through informed consent. Second, know where your data is, who has access to it, how secure it is and how to get to it when needed. Third, ask for help. Your IT professional and other lawyers can help you navigate this exciting new frontier.•

__________

Seth Wilson is an attorney with Hume Smith Geddes Green & Simmons LLP in Indianapolis. In addition to practicing law, he helps manage the day-to-day technology operations of the firm, and frequently speaks and advises on legal technology issues. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT